Waiting for Superbatteries They are still a long way from matching the energy density of liquid fue

Yea, you're right. No one has ever died from being stabbed or shot. It was the runaway blood loss or trouble breathing that killed them.

Perhaps you could explain why the majority of those that die from lung cancer were smokers?

 

I think we went off track here a little. Yes, you more or less describe a process. There is cheaper labor outside the US and people the world over are becoming good at manufacturing.

But, the question had to do with what our government should do about that.

Specifically, should the government support the American auto industry so that it may make the moves that the industry sees as critical to its future?

And if so, what should that support be?

 

LOL -

In my post I STATED that this ISN'T the issue.

In fact, you cut out that statement from my post.

It is YOU who is trying to pretend that this was the issue.

 

Again you are identifying ONE specific pollutant. And, that is just a dodge.

Whatever you could POSSIBLY find out about that one pollutant does NOT mean that there are no health ramifications of burning fossil fuel in our cities.

How about this - we have cities with warning systems where air quality due to fossil fuel emissions is bad enough that it is recommended that people stay inside. There are other levels, too - such as when it is advise that those who run for exercise not do so.

Was that because of CO? Had there been no CO would that mean there was no health issue?

 

Which has nothing to do with anything.

Men also die of breast cancer, so your point is?

 

No, but the issue that you apparently still simply make up "facts" is a long standing issue.

This is why few take you seriously. You simply make things up, as I very clearly pointed out. And you never provide a source for anything.

 

The point is crystal clear.

The cause of death is listed as cancer, NOT the quality of air being breathed.

Above, you wanted to claim that it was a big deal that CO wasn't listed as a cause of death.

But, there are TWO problems with that. First, truth and justice points out that cause of death isn't stated the way you seem to think.

The second is that there is a LOT of really expensive healthcare that goes into caring for those who DIDN'T die, but need constant or recurring healthcare.

 

I am not identifying anything. The post you were responding to was about CO, Carbon Monoxide. CO is barely even worth discussing, as in our atmosphere it is in a concentration of 100 ppb. That is 0.00001%. It is a trace gas, is not a greenhouse gas, and unless one is on an enclosed room is of no danger.

Unless you are talking over China, of course. There CO atmospheric concentrations are on average are over 300 ppb.

 

And you are making a classic mistake, of believing all cancers are caused by inhalation.

One thing that was realized decades ago is a major factor in lung cancer is radon. This has been known for decades now, and why basement living areas should have radon detectors. In fact, a study about 30 years ago showed that smokers on the second floor or higher had lung cancer rates about equal with the general population. Smokers on the ground floor showed an increased risk, those who spent most of their time in basements had a significantly higher rate of lung cancer.

And it takes a significant amount of air pollution of a prolonged period of time to be a cause of death. You are once again bloviating scaremongering and not discussing actual science and facts.

 

You know very well that what I posted was accurate - in fact, you said so!!!

The reason that example is pertinent is that it was a brief way to show that we import all sorts of goods that are made or grown in other countries.

The question that I've been asking is what rules the US government should follow in determining what US industries should receive support.

In terms of automobiles, can it be justified to help the US auto industry move toward advanced technology automobiles that EVERYONE in the industry believes are going to determine success of US automobile manufacturing in coming years?

How should that question be answered, such that the answer can be applied evenly to other industries?

 

First of all, you aren't proving anything at all about lung cancer. Radon exposure is something that has been long measured and known about.

Second of all, you are missing the point that death is not the worst outcome, financially speaking. The worst outcome from a financial standpoint is survival, with all the costs of that - constant healthcare events, prescriptions and treatments, marginal productivity leading to government support for food and housing, etc.

 

It is YOU who brought up CO.

NOW, you want to claim that what YOU brought up is irrelevant???

Also, you are missing that I've been discussing the impact on healthcare - not climate.

 

No, I did not. I said that in going back 20 years I could not find that same figure, but the closest was in 2011.

Now why would you try to claim 11 year old data was "accurate"? I sure as hell would not claim that, and I said nothing like that.

Once again, WR ignoring facts and just making things up as you go along. Hoping nobody will call you on your BS.

 

Sorry but are you actually trying to claim smoking does NOT cause lung disease because if that is true There is a whole industry worth of companies willing to pay big bucks for proof of that

 

Living with being constantly short of breath, unable to complete your basic activities if daily living, feeling like you are suffocating……

 

Less than 5% of lung cancer deaths are due to radon and 85% of those deaths were smokers. And your post about 2nd floor and above is nonsense

 

ClimateTV – Live at NOON CST Friday – The Futility of Electric Vehicles
Anthony Watts
Essentially, electric vehicles have had negligible impact of the use of fossil fuels in transportation over the last decade. . . .

 

Looking For The Official Party Line On Energy Storage
December 08, 2022/ Francis Menton

• 
  If you’ve read my energy storage report, or just the summaries of parts of it that have appeared on this blog, you have probably thought: this stuff is kind of obvious. Surely the powers that be must have thought of at least some of these issues, and there must be some kind of official position on the responses out there somewhere.
  

• So I thought to look around for the closest thing I could find to the Official Party Line on how the U.S. is supposedly going to get to Net Zero emissions from the electricity sector by some early date. The closest thing I have found is a big Report out in August 2022 from something called the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, titled “Examining Supply-Side Options to Achieve 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.” And accompanying press release with a date of August 30 has the headline “NREL Study Identifies the Opportunities and Challenges of Achieving the U.S. Transformational Goal of 100% Clean Electricity by 2035.”
  
  
• The end product is an excellent illustration of why central planning does not work and can never work.
  

READ MORE

 

That study covers the period where EVs started to be produced.

So, it includes 2010, where the chart on page 4 of the study notes that essentially zero EVs were sold in the USA. Argonne study link

Pretending that the first few years of a rapidly growing new technology can predict the impact of that technology is just plain silly. Look at the growth they show as of 2021.

NOBODY believes that the current sales rate of EVs is a measure of this technology or an indication of impact throughout the coming years. After all, sales rates are increasing rapidly, charging stations are still in short supply, and manufacturing can't keep up with demand. There are still serious manufacturers struggling to produce competitive entries.

EVERY manufacturer believes that EVs are the future.

 

I'm old enough to remember when all the people like you were saying exactly the same things about hybrids about 15 or 20 years ago. Even bought one myself, not because of fuel economy, but because it got me into the HOV lane on 66 driving into DC.

Wonder what ever happened to that over zealous hype?

 

By Anthony Watts


Ahhhh! Dear Anthony - you keep living in the past - the rest of us will move onto the new future

 

And it is hard to see a new Taxi that is not a hybrid these days. Truth is the world market is changing and America is no longer the main car maker or buyer

innovate or be left behind

 

They are just going to follow in AUSTRALIA’S footsteps

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-12-09/midwest-hydrogen-energy-to-power-rotterdam-port/101751266

Keep up old chaps we are going to out innovate you

 

Yes, hybrids were a step in the right direction.

Batteries and motors improved, so requiring a second engine burning gas became dead weight, extra maintenance, increased complexity, and a space hog.

This is something that Toyota missed. They built great hybrids, and thought that technology would last longer than is evident today.

 

Did I ever say anything of the sort?

No, I did not. I said nothing like that.

Good rule of thumb, do not look in what I post for hidden meanings, I say what I mean. I leave the silly word games to others.

However, I will loudly and clearly say that a great many things cause lung disease. Not just smoking, not just pollution.